In similar factual settings, we and the Supreme Court have held admissible hearsay statements made, often to Bays or others from the CARES program, by a sexual abuse victim during the course of treatment. See State v. Barkley, 315 Or. 420, 846 P.2d 390 (1993); State v. Booth, 124 Or. App. 282, 862 P.2d 518 (1993), rev den 319 Or. 81 (1994); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Cornett, 121 Or. App. 264, 855 P.2d 171 (1993), rev dismissed 318 Or. 323 (1994); State v. Verley, 106 Or. App. 751, 809 P.2d 723, rev den 311 Or. 644 (1991); State v. Logan, 105 Or. App. 556, 806 P.2d 137, rev dismissed 312 Or. 16 (1991); State v. Vosika, 83 Or. App. 298, 731 P.2d 449, mod 85 Or. App. 148, 735 P.2d 1273 (1987). However, defendant is correct that admissibility under OEC 803(4) must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
We review for errors of law. State v. Verley, 106 Or. App. 751, 809 P.2d 723, rev den 311 Or. 644 (1991). The trial court's factual determinations will be upheld if there is evidence in the record to support them.
Having concluded that C's statements satisfy the Moen requirements, we hold that the videotape, testimony and drawings were admissible under OEC 803(4). See State v. Verley, 106 Or. App. 751, 809 P.2d 723, rev den 311 Or. 644 (1991). On de novo review, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that father has repeatedly sexually abused C, and that stepfather has had inappropriate sexual contact with her.
We also reject defendant's argument that OEC 803(4) precludes the introduction of statements in the form of videotape. State v. Verley, 106 Or. App. 751, 753, 809 P.2d 723 (1991). OEC 803(4) provides: